1. As to KRW 18,807,780 and KRW 18,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from May 22, 2015 to May 31, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant who was responsible for the construction of furnitures to 105 households of the Busan Jin-gu Busan High Complex C (hereinafter “instant building”) on a price of KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

Around that time, the Defendant paid 10,000,000 won to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff completed most of the instant construction works.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 20,000,000 and delay damages therefrom, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was installed at Nos. 201 and 205 of the instant building, 2 and 304, which were owned by the Defendant, destroyed 2 and 1 attached houses owned by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is liable to compensate KRW 10,164,00,00 (per day from August 2, 2014 to August 12, 2014, the day after the date when the damage in this case occurred) equivalent to the part of the penalty for delay that the Defendant had borne due to the delay in the Defendant’s household construction, for the damages of KRW 20,164,00,00,000, such as consolation money for business or mental damage, from August 2, 2014, and for the damages of KRW 10,00,00,000 per day.

If this set-off is made against the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost of KRW 20,000,000, the above claim for construction cost shall be extinguished in entirety.

B. Determination 1) On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the remainder payment of the remainder, and destroyed the Plaintiff’s 201 and 205 building of this case by removing the Plaintiff’s scambling, which was installed under the Defendant’s 201 and 205, and by removing one scambling box installed under the Defendant’s possession, which was destroyed.

(hereinafter “damage of this case”). (B) The Plaintiff is the damage of this case.